Hillary’s “Significance”

Just who is significant? Photo by highkey11, creative commons license
Just who is significant? Photo by highkey11, creative commons license
I’m pretty sure I want Barack Obama for President, but I could still change my mind. Granted, in order for that to happen Obama would have to do something which demonstrated that he does not intend to carry through with the promises in his proposed policy. If I were to switch my support to Hillary Clinton, however, something even more surprising would have to happen: she would have to demonstrate some sort of consistent dedication to something besides satisfying her own ambition. Every time I read the news, no matter how hard I try to give her the benefit of the doubt, I wind up irritated and confused by her latest shenanigans. Take, for example, this little quote from her Chief Strategist Mark Penn:

Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn’t won any of the significant states — outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.

This is a campaign which has stated its determination to fight for Michigan and Florida being included in the DNC because “every vote should count”, but all those votes in all the 21 states aside from Illinois which Obama won…are insignificant? Perhaps what Senator Clinton’s campaign is trying to say is that they care about the voters in Michigan and Florida because those states are significant. I guess I can see it from her perspective.

But then there’s how she claims she really cares about the middle class, the “everyman”, if you will. And yet, she rents out her donor lists cheap to a megacorporation whose CEO has helped her out in the past. It’s just weird, and I can’t quite get my head around it. Somehow her populist message isn’t sounding very populist. Perhaps corporate friends are more significant than mere citizens.

So, we’re on to talking about Texas and Ohio, two states which are significant and in which by all accounts Senator Clinton must win big if she is to continue to be significant herself. She is counting on the support of the Hispanic community (commonly ignored as insignificant, but not in election season), particularly as she seems to be losing ground with the (also normally insignificant) black and women demographics. Somehow, though, despite the recent change in staffing for her campaign and her declarations that she’s not done, yet, I don’t feel like Hillary is getting it. This whole grass-roots support concept that Obama has so successfully built his campaign upon is not trouncing her because their stated intentions are so very far apart. It’s because Obama makes each one of us feel significant.

2 Comments

  1. Posted February 14, 2008 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    Hillary, you can’t have it both ways!

  2. Posted February 19, 2008 at 12:25 am | Permalink

    I think there’s an even better reason to be entirely distrustful of Clinton. It’s not my original logic by the way, but I like it….

    Here’s a woman who uncritically signed off on the Iraq war. She has said various things about why, but it’s clear to everyone that the real reason was that opposing it seemed like it would be bad for her Presidential chances. So, she’s proved herself willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and thousands of American soldiers rather than look bad by standing up for her principles.

    That should make her unelectable.

    PS at least Bush did it to help out his buddies in the oil industry. Is that better, lol?

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the answer to the math equation shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the equation.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam equation